RugbyRebels

"Woke". The new PC boogeyman for people that can't understand how their ignorance can cause offense to others.

morepork wrote:"Woke". The new PC boogeyman for people that can't understand how their ignorance can cause offense to others.

Where someone types the word "woke", mentally replace it with "being nice to people" - because that's exactly what it means. Personally, I'm happy with the label of being nice to people.

Equally "Social Justice Warrior" quite literally means someone who would fight in favour of social justice. Personally, I'm happy with that label.

And then there's phrases like "people taking offence with something that is nothing to do with them " simply means "people who possess empathy". Again, I'm happy to admit that I possess empathy.


Using these terms as insults always says far, far more about the person railing than the person they're railing at. Usually getting ap offended whilst accusing the non-offended party of being a snowflake.

https://archive.ph/zw3Dk

Wasps to look into call to ban Exeter fans from wearing Native American headdresses at their ground

Supporters group writes to Premiership club about the 'cultural appropriation' with Wasps promising to review their policies regards issue

Wasps will become the first Premiership club to “look into” a call to ban Exeter fans from wearing novelty Native American headdresses at their ground after a supporters group wrote to them about the “cultural appropriation”.

Article Continues...

We can only be thankful that many years ago Devon clubs decided to refer to 1st teams as 'Chiefs' and not 'Zulus'. One can only imagine what the marketing people and old Moany Rowe would have come up with...

I think it's people wearing fancy dress and the vague notion of racism an absurdity. But then I think having a problem with people from any community having dreads, or wearing a sari, or even wearing jeans would similarly be an absurdity and yet others take that as literal theft. No doubt such people were horrified by the Olympics holding events such as tennis or surfing. That said I don't have any objection to people choosing not to buy Exeter merchandise, attend Exeter games. I'm not going to dress up in feathers myself, but trying to tell others they shouldn't just seems somewhat... totalitarian, and I'm a liberal.

People culturally take stuff from others, it's how a world should work imo, and the idea we need to put up as many walls as possible to say leave that alone that's mine is just weird, walls aren't wanted, not by me anyway. Unless it's actual stuff like land, resources, that is very different. This for instance is a story of actual appropriation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-58259497

Despite the offence taken by Native Americans?

You are completely tone deaf.

Digby wrote:I think it's people wearing fancy dress and the vague notion of racism an absurdity. But then I think having a problem with people from any community having dreads, or wearing a sari, or even wearing jeans would similarly be an absurdity and yet others take that as literal theft. No doubt such people were horrified by the Olympics holding events such as tennis or surfing. That said I don't have any objection to people choosing not to buy Exeter merchandise, attend Exeter games. I'm not going to dress up in feathers myself, but trying to tell others they shouldn't just seems somewhat... totalitarian, and I'm a liberal.

People culturally take stuff from others, it's how a world should work imo, and the idea we need to put up as many walls as possible to say leave that alone that's mine is just weird, walls aren't wanted, not by me anyway. Unless it's actual stuff like land, resources, that is very different. This for instance is a story of actual appropriation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-58259497

It is functionally equivalent to blackface - a "fancy dress" designed to mock an oppressed minority. I'm baffled that this is the hill you're choosing to die on.

Puja

I think the question should be; would you be willing to walk into the middle of a Native American reserve while dressed in Chiefs fan garb and have a serious debate on whether they should find it offensive or not? No? Then it's probably offensive.
Same goes for blacking up. If you're not willing to go to Notting Hill Carnival in full blackface and defend it. I don't think you should be allowed to do it surrounded by loads of white people for 'a bit of fun'.

I think you've almost argued yourself out of this to be honest. There is a difference between cultural appropriation and assimilation.

Your example of the vegetables is not appropriation because they're being used for the reason they were supposed to be used. Enjoying a traditional meal from another culture is fine. The war bonnet Exeter fans wear IS appropriation because it's something that you earn the right to wear in native American culture, but the people wearing it to a rugby game are reducing it to a gimmick to 'play' with, ignoring not just the importance it plays in another culture, but the history of suffering that group has gone through. I know it's not a perfect analogy but I'm sure people would be pissed off seeing others walk around with a Victoria cross medal on they didn't earn.

I'm not even what most would describe as 'woke' but I find it baffling that people can't see this. What I do know is it's very difficult to know the importance of a lot of these things until someone points it out. But once it has, why are we so against saying 'fair enough, I didn't know, won't do that anymore'?

Digby wrote:I think it's people wearing fancy dress and the vague notion of racism an absurdity. But then I think having a problem with people from any community having dreads, or wearing a sari, or even wearing jeans would similarly be an absurdity and yet others take that as literal theft. No doubt such people were horrified by the Olympics holding events such as tennis or surfing. That said I don't have any objection to people choosing not to buy Exeter merchandise, attend Exeter games. I'm not going to dress up in feathers myself, but trying to tell others they shouldn't just seems somewhat... totalitarian, and I'm a liberal.

People culturally take stuff from others, it's how a world should work imo, and the idea we need to put up as many walls as possible to say leave that alone that's mine is just weird, walls aren't wanted, not by me anyway. Unless it's actual stuff like land, resources, that is very different. This for instance is a story of actual appropriation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-58259497

I'd be rather annoyed if someone started strutting around in full military garb with a victoria cross on their chest, if they hadn't earned it. That they're doing it to a minority that has been persecuted for a long time, only adds to the issue.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I think it's people wearing fancy dress and the vague notion of racism an absurdity. But then I think having a problem with people from any community having dreads, or wearing a sari, or even wearing jeans would similarly be an absurdity and yet others take that as literal theft. No doubt such people were horrified by the Olympics holding events such as tennis or surfing. That said I don't have any objection to people choosing not to buy Exeter merchandise, attend Exeter games. I'm not going to dress up in feathers myself, but trying to tell others they shouldn't just seems somewhat... totalitarian, and I'm a liberal.

People culturally take stuff from others, it's how a world should work imo, and the idea we need to put up as many walls as possible to say leave that alone that's mine is just weird, walls aren't wanted, not by me anyway. Unless it's actual stuff like land, resources, that is very different. This for instance is a story of actual appropriation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-58259497

It is functionally equivalent to blackface - a "fancy dress" designed to mock an oppressed minority. I'm baffled that this is the hill you're choosing to die on.

Puja

I don't in advance consider black face to be racist or not racist, depends on the context for me.

morepork wrote:Despite the offence taken by Native Americans?

You are completely tone deaf.

I'm aware I lack awareness (or empathy), but whatever it's not there.

I think they've got some valid points on the theft of land (though I don't have much in the way of a good idea of what to do about it), and the ongoing theft of raw materials. I'm just not remotely fussed by the cultural appropriation part.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:It is functionally equivalent to blackface - a "fancy dress" designed to mock an oppressed minority. I'm baffled that this is the hill you're choosing to die on.

Puja

I don't in advance consider black face to be racist or not racist, depends on the context for me.

I know; we've had this exact conversation before. I'm still baffled by you.

You are categorically and unequivocally wrong (in several different ways in just that one sentence) and I shall leave it there, as there's no merit to arguing when the starting premise goes as low as "maybe blackface is okay sometimes?"

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:It is functionally equivalent to blackface - a "fancy dress" designed to mock an oppressed minority. I'm baffled that this is the hill you're choosing to die on.

Puja

I don't in advance consider black face to be racist or not racist, depends on the context for me.

I know; we've had this exact conversation before. I'm still baffled by you.

You are categorically and unequivocally wrong (in several different ways in just that one sentence) and I shall leave it there, as there's no merit to arguing when the starting premise goes as low as "maybe blackface is okay sometimes?"

Puja

Maybe it is. If a kid has Usain Bolt as a hero and wanted to go to a fancy dress as the leg-end himself that doesn't seem remotely racist to me. If however one wanted to wear blackface and jump up and down making animal noises pretending black people are monkeys and/or stupid that would be a different thing altogether. I'm sure there are people who do get offended by such, but they seem about as worthwhile listening to as those KKK members getting upset by Eddie Murphy in Coming to America (and I'm confident I could find white supremacists who are offended by just that)

Just in this debate we've heard over and over the wearing of feathered headdresses is offensive to Native Americans, which seems an absurd starting point if the concern is cultural appropriation. The wearing of feathers for specific spiritual or even cultural reasons is surely much more specific than that, you'd likely have to think most Native Americans have themselves appropriated the practice, and in this area appropriation is just what happens when people mix. Sort of a point in this in that many Native Americans will only have shared land and then practices so much because of the actions of a certain other race, but it's a think branch liable to snap to walk out on

Similarly I'm sure they are people who'd be offended by Nick Easter pretending he's a Sarf Lon'on gangster as opposed to being out of Dulwich College, but just how far are such concerns to be taken seriously? Yes some people are offended, so what! Just don't talk to Minty if you should happen to meet him

Yeah, because Exeter is the cultural epicentre of all the myriad languages and practices of the over five hundred Native American tribal groups. They really nailed it with that chant too.

Pointless to even try and reason with someone that thinks this is OK.

Coming from the chap who has said many rude things about Donald Trump and now has an issue with offence. Even less deserving of offence is one Owen Farrell, merely a hard working rugby player, or someone MP is happy to accuse of beastiality, presumably in the name of humour but you never know. Pointless to discuss offence with someone who fails to agree with themselves

I am fwiw making no argument Exeter is at the centre of anything, more whilst I don't think it's offensive I don't care if people are offended, and I'm quite content for everyone to play along or ignore it. And if you can do it in Exeter you can do it anywhere, which is sort of the point

I feel stupider now

Bitch pleeze...

What the fuck?

I honestly did not think much about it before, but now I am suddenly aware that I may have unwittingly offended a bunch of outraged Leprechauns.
The little fekkkers will probably blight my potato crop now

Oakboy wrote: According to the DT, they adopted the name in 1999, based on the SW tradition for clubs to refer to their 1st XVs as 'chiefs'.

Is that actually true? I had a look at few Cornish/Devon clubs webistes and they seem to list them as 1st XV...

To summarise from the Bristol sportsnet work thread on this:

Posters question the branding.

Exeter poster - "Native Americans don't find it offensive"

Shown links to complaints from Native Americans

Exe poster - "They're the wrong sort Native Americans as they don't live there, they live in Exeter and anyway the Moslim wants to impose their way of life on us"

https://swww.rugbynetwork.net/boards/re ... 992,page=3

I believe the Exe poster in question is the former moderator on their site, under a different guise. The Exe board on SN has recently gone from being one of the least used and boring boards to become a real hotbed for controversy. Whether you are a 'woke snowflake' or an overt racist, there is something there for everyone!

chris1850 wrote:I believe the Exe poster in question is the former moderator on their site, under a different guise. The Exe board on SN has recently gone from being one of the least used and boring boards to become a real hotbed for controversy. Whether you are a 'woke snowflake' or an overt racist, there is something there for everyone!

The new mod has banned all talk of branding and anything "non-rugby".

I guess this sort of goes here.

Exeter have a new front of shirt sponsor, replacing SW Comms (who're now on the shoulder I think?).

Tony Rowe “Thankfully, I am pleased to say all our sponsors are fully behind us and our branding, both on and off the field.”

Isn't it lucky this new company are on board...

It's good news Exeter have some money coming in. And it doesn't help anyone else if potential sponsors can say never mind you the best side in the country can't get a front shirt sponsor.

Not quite so good if it Tony Rowe by another name, but if that's an issue they're welcome to address it. It's often the problem the workaround to regs aren't remotely what you'd meant